This is one of the few responses I've seen that actually articulates a defense of deletionism rather than just a summary of deletionist theory, so let me engage

This is one of the few responses I've seen that actually articulates a defense of deletionism rather than just a summary of deletionist theory, so let me engage here. What exactly does policing for spam and vandalism consist of? There are a number of automated tools already deployed on wikipedia that get improved over time for detecting particular types of spam and vandalism. The use of anonymous accounts, in particular, make it hard to do any interesting spam at scale. It seems to me that the larger wikipedia is, paradoxically, the easier it will be to detect patterns of spam, especially out on the tail. As for "No Original Research", that's probably the principle of wikipedia that I'm most skeptical of; and really, it isn't respected, as wikipedia has become such an important secondary source. I think it's useful as a guiding principle, in that you don't want people using wikipedia as a platform to advance their alternative theory of gravity, but for the most part the harm is small to allow us to push the envelope a little bit.